339 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
income from said sum on the specified lot, for such care as may 
be desired, but we do not agree to do any certain amount of 
work further than the income on the amount deposited will 
SO. 
In no case will we accept less than one hundred dollars for 
such fund. 
We have never accepted donations for the care of stone 
work. 
Interest is figured on these funds, at just the rate the money 
earns during the year, some of it is necessarily lying idle 
a part of the time and we make all funds bear their share of 
this loss. 
No accurate estimate can be made in advance ol the earn- 
ings of money as interest rates fluctuate considerably, and 
are gradually reducing. 
Certainly, the guarantee to expend the income on fund can 
be made perpetual. Arthur W. Hobert, Supt. 
Island Cemetery, Nenvpori, R. I. 
The matter of perpetual care of lots with us is yet in its 
infancy, and is the only method whereby the cemetery can 
be assured of permanent care. As to the best form of con- 
tract it is hard to decide what to do, for instance: A. and B. 
pay for annual care, C. doesn’t care whether his lot is kept 
in order or not. D. and E. are under perpetual care. The 
neglect of C. destroys the general effect of the care given to 
the others. Now if the corporation cares for C., A. and B. 
will naturally say, “Why should we pay annually while C. 
gets his kept in order for nothing.” D. and E. are delighted 
because it improves the looks of their plots. I think it well to 
leave this matter to the discretion of the superintendent and 
use personal solicitation on C. 
One half the income from lot sales should be used for 
perpetual care, and the other half for general care and embel- 
lishment — “Improvements.” 
We have a board of nine trustees, elected by the corpora- 
tion (lot owmers) for three years. Electing three each year 
after the first, they to elect president, treasurer, secretary, 
superintendent, etc. 
As to contract we give receipt for the sum received, and 
agree to use the income, or so much of it as may be neces- 
sary, to keep tbe lot in good order. 
The basis for determing the deposit required from individ- 
ual lot holders is the average cost for, say, ten years. A 
sum placed at interest not to exceed 3 per cent which would 
meet this average (our basis is 2^4 per cent) is $200 required 
for single lot, i' rod square. 
Deposits for the care of mausoleums, monuments, etc., must 
be one half the original cost. 
It is proper to guarantee something in perpetuity. 
A. K. McMahon, Supt. 
Cypress Lam)n Cemetery, San Francisco. 
We perhaps have adopted a different plan of perpetual care 
from any other cemetery. I have taken the stand that the only 
way to get a Perpetual Care Fund was to have the rich pay 
for the poor, and consequently based the charge upon the cost 
of the lot, rather than upon the area, and have found the plan 
to work very well. If for instance, we sell a lot for $75, 
the purchaser pays $25 additional for the perpetual care of 
same ; if we sell another lot for $15,000, that man pays $5,000 
into the same fund, and while he is paying more per square 
foot for perpetual care than the poor man, yet he gets the 
benefit of having the poor man’s lot cared for, and does not 
detract from the beauty of his own. We have in our Perpet- 
ual Care Fund now something like $300,000 invested in City 
real estate and paying a good income. 
We add 33 1-3 per cent to the cost of the lot for perpetual 
care. This money goes into a Perpeutal Care Fund and 
expended on all lots alike. 
All our lots have been sold with Perpetual Care. 
The trustees of our cemetery receive these funds in trust 
with authority to spend only the income from the same. 1 
Our contract is given in form of a receipt, agreeing to ex- 
pend the income from the fund on the lot. 
To determine the amount of deposit we make the basis of 
charge on tbe value of the lot, rather than on the square , 
feet, thus making the valuable lots carry the burden of the 
expense. 
We figure on a basis of 3l4 per cent on perpetual care 
funds. 
We guarantee to spend the income in perpetuity. 
W. W. Noble. 
^ose Hill Cemetery, Chicago. 
An amount sufficient at 4 per cent interest to yield the cost 
of annual care and maintenance should be set aside for per- I 
petual care. This should not apply to general care, which , 
should be otherwise provided for. j 
The best form of contract is that which will cover as near as 
possible all possible future needs setting forth definitely what 
care and improvements are contemplated. 
The basis of deposit for perpetual care should be figured 
entirely from the cost of annual care with a reasonable al- 
lowance for proper improvements which will have to be made ( 
from time to time and a sum sufficient to produce this amount 
annually, with interest at 4 per cent set aside for that pur- 1 
pose. j 
Perpetual care of mausoleums is somewhat problematical. ; 
A reasonable plan is for the owner to set aside such an j 
amount as in his own judgement is satisfactory, the entire 
income of which shall be held for such repairs as become : 
necessary. | 
Four per cent seems a reasonable basis of estimate as in- 1 
terest on perpetual care funds. 1 
It seems proper to guarantee something in perpetuity from j 
the fact that it is the only thing that can be done under the 1 
circumstances and we see no reason why it should not be 
entirely proper and satisfactory for all concerned. 5 
Henry L. Pitcher, Prest. j 
Homemfood Cemetery, Rittsburg. 
Homewood Cemetery sets aside 10 per cent of cash re- | 
ceipts for perpetual care. i 
The Cemetery has general care all over. No reference to j 
any application of funds. I 
Special care is provided for by endozuments. i 
We have no trustees, but a board of managers. ! 
We have no special basis for determining the amount of de- 
posit on lots. Individuals give from $100 to $1,000 and up- ! 
wards and we use the income annually. | 
The rate of interest to be allowed on perpetual care funds 
depends on tbe income you can get for the money. 
David Woods, Supt. 
MICHIGAN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED. 
The efforts to organize a state association of cemetery super- 
intendents in Michigan under the guidance of Mr. Frank 
Enrich, of Detroit, resulted in a very successful meeting in 
Grand Rapids, July 26 and 27. The organization was named 
The Michigan Cemetery Association, and those in attendance 
were enthusiastic regarding the outlook for its future useful- 
ness. At the first session Mr. Chas. W. Garfield of Grand 
Rapids read a paper on “The Penalty of Timidity in Plan- 
ning Rural Cemeteries,” and other papers were read and dis- 
cussed. 
